Time is the transfer of energy.

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Some basic Universal thingy ?

Unfortunately, it is a crucial question that must be answered seriously or your statement that matter=energy is nonsense.
That's GR.
I know my memory isn't what it used to be, but I seem to remember that it is SR that says E=MC2.
Mass is part of the energy of matter.
That is what I said. However, are you still saying that mass=matter??
No, point would be a horrible word for this,try wave-particle...
...if you accept that quantum theory is complete and correct...

Eaglesyfon
I always thought of time as the change of the three spatial dimentions, but not just day to night or the Earth's rotation.

Originally posted by Eaglesyfon
I always thought of time as the change of the three spatial dimentions, but not just day to night or the Earth's rotation.
Of course, the day/night cycle caused by the earth's rotation is only a large scale sum of many lesser time events that add up to it. See comments on first page regarding dimensions.

ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Originally posted by StephenSwires
the concept of flow only contains time if you equate order with time because flow is a change in order.
IMO, the problem has not gone away.

If you mention "change", you need to specify with respect to what, since it otherwise the change can only be in time.

IOW, any mention of "change" is basically the use of a derivative (especially if you are talking about a physical concept). As such, you need to specify with respect to which variable you are deriving.

So, what is "x" in you assertion that

Time = d(Energy)/dx

???

Originally posted by Alexander
Also, time is not a dimension (freedom to move back and forth in) but just a coordinate.
"Dimension" does not mean "freedom to move back and forth in". Relativity doesn't even allow for such a distinction to be made (that it is me that is moving, and not the dimension that is being distorted).

Also, the speed of our movement in "time" is inversely proportional to our movement in "space", and thus we are as free in that one as in any other. The reason we can't "turn around" and go backwards in time is that there is no other time dimension to do so in (while we have more than one spacial dimension, and can thus turn around).

Originally posted by ahrkron
IMO, the problem has not gone away.

If you mention "change", you need to specify with respect to what, since it otherwise the change can only be in time.

IOW, any mention of "change" is basically the use of a derivative (especially if you are talking about a physical concept). As such, you need to specify with respect to which variable you are deriving.

So, what is "x" in you assertion that

Time = d(Energy)/dx

???
This is a very good point and one I've found intriguing while trying to work this through. I believed I should use the term transfer or flow of energy from our perspective in time because that is what we see it as. But of course, if such transfer gives rise to time, then no coordinate system or order that involves any idea of time (or space) can be used to describe it in its ultimate reality.

However, I believe it is possible then to use a coordinate system that is primary and not a spacetime coordinate system. Such a coordinate system could be based upon 2 points and every point in spacetime could be assigned a particular coordinate in reference to those two points. There would actually be no change when viewed from that perspective (by some intelligence outside of spacetime), but only the whole.
The fact the we describe it as a flow (change or transfer) from our perspective does not falsify the concept.

in a sence this is true. one of the many "arrows of time" that is used to reason the flow of time is the thermodynamic arrow of time in which we observe order changing to disorder. but then again, with what system other than time do we use to calculate the FLOW of energy? we only observe the flow because time has passed. i may be repeating someone i just jumped in here.

RuroumiKenshin
I jumped in here too:

What is the difference between the transfer of energy and the flow of energy?

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
I jumped in here too:

What is the difference between the transfer of energy and the flow of energy?
nothing.

Holodeckie
Originally posted by StephenSwires
Time is the transfer (flow) of energy by matter.

The underlying physical law that is labeled the 2nd law of thermodynamics being that energy is transferred

--from matter with greater energy to matter with lesser energy is the same law that makes time flow in only one direction --

for all matter and beings made of matter.
What about interference patterns (constructive and destructive)created when high energy acts on low energy, creating a third wave pattern?

And why should we assume that third pattern only flows in one direction?

Les Sleeth
Gold Member
Originally posted by StephenSwires
Time is the transfer (flow) of energy by matter.

If you do a mental experiment and conceive of time stopped, it requires the cessation of the flow of energy. Everything "freezes" as it is without change.
All effects of time are seen as effects of the flow of energy (aging, etc.).
All sentient physical beings experience and make their observations about the physical universe by the flow of energy within the brain, so the concept of the flow of time is inseperable from the thought process.
The underlying physical law that is labeled the 2nd law of thermodynamics being that energy is transferred from matter with greater energy to matter with lesser energy is the same law that makes time flow in only one direction for all matter and beings made of matter.
I like your take on time, and have nearly the same view with a couple of small differences.

The universe starts with a bang and that was the beginning of time; therefore when/if the universe ceases to exist, so will time. As far as what we actually know, there has never been another universe and there may never be another one. This is it (as far as we know).

From the moment of singularity, the universe has steadily dis-integrated; and as the structure of matter steadily declines, the energy bound up in its organization departs. That "flow" is the key to how long the universe will continue, as you say. The fact that the overall direction of energy flow in our universe is entropic means change overall is too. So again I think you are correct to say change has equivalency to time (overall).

However, the flow of energy is not all there is to it because the rate of flow can change, as SR has demonstrated. So "time" is related to the rate of disappearance of our universe.

Taking into account these points, then rather than saying time is only the flow of energy, one might say, time is the overall rate of entropic flow of energy because once it has all flowed (entropically), time is up! (That is, of course, unless the universe starts anew somehow.)

It's interesting that time is measured by things that cycle. If one considers the absolute most basic cycling things of the universe, it has to be the oscillitory nature of atoms and light. In another thread we've been discussing the loss of energy by EM as the universe expands, and indeed that does affect the rate of EM cycling.

Last edited: